Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Should States Regulate AI?

News

Should States Regulate AI?

Rep. Jay Obernolte, R-CA, speaks at an AI conference on Capitol Hill with experts

Provided

WASHINGTON —- As House Republicans voted Thursday to pass a 10-year moratorium on AI regulation by states, Rep. Jay Obernolte, R-CA, and AI experts said the measure would be necessary to ensure US dominance in the industry.

“We want to make sure that AI continues to be led by the United States of America, and we want to make sure that our economy and our society realizes the potential benefits of AI deployment,” Obernolte said.


As Artificial Intelligence has the potential to revolutionize many aspects of society, federal and state leaders clash over the states’ ability to regulate it on their own.

According to data from the National Conference of State Legislators, legislation to regulate AI had already been introduced in 48 states. In 2024 alone, nearly 700 such bills were introduced, and 75 were adopted or enacted.

40 state attorneys general have co-signed a letter to Congress, urging them not to pass this measure.

“This bill does not propose any regulatory scheme to replace or supplement the laws enacted or currently under consideration by the states, leaving Americans entirely unprotected from the potential harms of AI,” the letter states.

However, Obernolte said leaving AI regulation up to the individual states could create a series of complex and confusing rules that make it difficult for innovators to operate.

“We risk creating this very balkanized regulatory landscape of potentially 50 different state regulations going in 50 different, and in some cases wildly different directions,” Obernolte said during an event Thursday on Capitol Hill. “It would be a barrier to entry for everybody.”

The moratorium bill now awaits a vote in the Senate. It faces widespread opposition, mostly from Democrats but also some Republicans, who argue that it leaves Americans without safeguards from AI.

“We need those protections, and until we pass something that is federally preemptive, we can't call for a moratorium on those things,” said Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-TN, at a Senate hearing on Wednesday.

However, Obernolte addressed some of these concerns by pointing out that agencies already regulate AI in various ways. For example, he said that the Food and Drug Administration has already issued over 1,000 permits for the use of AI in medical devices.

Logan Kolas, the director of tech policy at the American Consumer Institute, said that part of the problem with states jumping to regulate AI without careful consideration is that the technology is so new that we do not understand the real problems.

“There's a lot of things we don't know, and that does require a bit of humility. As these provable harms come up, those are the things that we absolutely 100% should be addressing, but, trying to anticipate them, to think of the millions of possibilities of what could go wrong, is just unrealistic and not the way that we have done successful policy in the past,” said Kolas.

Perry Metzger, the chairman of the board of Alliance for the Future, a non-profit dedicated to helping lessen fears of AI, echoed Kolas’s claims and said that regulations on AI as a whole would be counterproductive because AI is merely a tool to accomplish things. He said the dangers of AI technology lie in how people use it, not the technology itself.

“We have a tradition [in this country] that I think is very important. That is, not blaming manufacturers for egregious and knowing misuses of their tools. We do not say that the Ford Motor Company is liable whenever someone uses an F-150 in a bank robbery. We have a feeling in our country that the people who choose to rob banks are responsible for that sort of misuse,” said Metzger.

Athan Yanos is a graduate student at Northwestern Medill in the Politics, Policy and Foreign Affairs specialization. He is a New York native. Prior to Medill, he graduated with an M.A. in Philosophy and Politics from the University of Edinburgh. He also hosts his own podcast dedicated to philosophy and international politics.

To read more of Athan's work, click HERE.

The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. Learn how by clicking HERE.

Read More

Someone wrapping a gift.

As screens replace toys, childhood is being gamified. What this shift means for parents, play, development, and holiday gift-giving.

Getty Images, Oscar Wong

The Christmas When Toys Died: The Playtime Paradigm Shift Retailers Failed to See Coming

Something is changing this Christmas, and parents everywhere are feeling it. Bedrooms overflow with toys no one touches, while tablets steal the spotlight, pulling children as young as five into digital worlds that retailers are slow to recognize. The shift is quiet but unmistakable, and many parents are left wondering what toy purchases even make sense anymore.

Research shows that higher screen time correlates with significantly lower engagement in other play activities, mainly traditional, physical, unstructured play. It suggests screen-based play is displacing classic play with traditional toys. Families are experiencing in real time what experts increasingly describe as the rise of “gamified childhoods.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Affordability Crisis and AI: Kelso’s Universal Capitalism

Rising costs, AI disruption, and inequality revive interest in Louis Kelso’s “universal capitalism” as a market-based answer to the affordability crisis.

Getty Images, J Studios

Affordability Crisis and AI: Kelso’s Universal Capitalism

“Affordability” over the cost of living has been in the news a lot lately. It’s popping up in political campaigns, from the governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia to the mayor’s races in New York City and Seattle. President Donald Trump calls the term a “hoax” and a “con job” by Democrats, and it’s true that the inflation rate hasn’t increased much since Trump began his second term in January.

But a number of reports show Americans are struggling with high costs for essentials like food, housing, and utilities, leaving many families feeling financially pinched. Total consumer spending over the Black Friday-Thanksgiving weekend buying binge actually increased this year, but a Salesforce study found that’s because prices were about 7% higher than last year’s blitz. Consumers actually bought 2% fewer items at checkout.

Keep ReadingShow less
Censorship Should Be Obsolete by Now. Why Isn’t It?

US Capital with tech background

Greggory DiSalvo/Getty Images

Censorship Should Be Obsolete by Now. Why Isn’t It?

Techies, activists, and academics were in Paris this month to confront the doom scenario of internet shutdowns, developing creative technology and policy solutions to break out of heavily censored environments. The event– SplinterCon– has previously been held globally, from Brussels to Taiwan. I am on the programme committee and delivered a keynote at the inaugural SplinterCon in Montreal on how internet standards must be better designed for censorship circumvention.

Censorship and digital authoritarianism were exposed in dozens of countries in the recently published Freedom on the Net report. For exampl,e Russia has pledged to provide “sovereign AI,” a strategy that will surely extend its network blocks on “a wide array of social media platforms and messaging applications, urging users to adopt government-approved alternatives.” The UK joined Vietnam, China, and a growing number of states requiring “age verification,” the use of government-issued identification cards, to access internet services, which the report calls “a crisis for online anonymity.”

Keep ReadingShow less
The concept of AI hovering among the public.

Panic-driven legislation—from airline safety to AI bans—often backfires, and evidence must guide policy.

Getty Images, J Studios

Beware of Panic Policies

"As far as human nature is concerned, with panic comes irrationality." This simple statement by Professor Steve Calandrillo and Nolan Anderson has profound implications for public policy. When panic is highest, and demand for reactive policy is greatest, that's exactly when we need our lawmakers to resist the temptation to move fast and ban things. Yet, many state legislators are ignoring this advice amid public outcries about the allegedly widespread and destructive uses of AI. Thankfully, Calandrillo and Anderson have identified a few examples of what I'll call "panic policies" that make clear that proposals forged by frenzy tend not to reflect good public policy.

Let's turn first to a proposal in November of 2001 from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). For obvious reasons, airline safety was subject to immense public scrutiny at this time. AAP responded with what may sound like a good idea: require all infants to have their own seat and, by extension, their own seat belt on planes. The existing policy permitted parents to simply put their kid--so long as they were under two--on their lap. Essentially, babies flew for free.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) permitted this based on a pretty simple analysis: the risks to young kids without seatbelts on planes were far less than the risks they would face if they were instead traveling by car. Put differently, if parents faced higher prices to travel by air, then they'd turn to the road as the best way to get from A to B. As we all know (perhaps with the exception of the AAP at the time), airline travel is tremendously safer than travel by car. Nevertheless, the AAP forged ahead with its proposal. In fact, it did so despite admitting that they were unsure of whether the higher risks of mortality of children under two in plane crashes were due to the lack of a seat belt or the fact that they're simply fragile.

Keep ReadingShow less